Quoted Text

Congress sends equal pay bill to Obama
BY JIM ABRAMS The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON — Congress sent the White House Tuesday what is expected to be the first legislation that President Barack Obama signs into law, a bill that makes it easier for women and others to sue for pay discrimination, even if the discrimination has prevailed for years, even decades.
    White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would sign the bill, a top priority for labor and women’s rights groups, Thursday during a public ceremony in the East Room.
    The bill is a response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company’s initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the bill, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.
    The measure, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after receiving a congratulatory phone call from Obama, is “a bold step to move away from that parsimonious interpretation” of the Supreme Court.
    The plaintiff in the case, Lilly Ledbetter, argued that she did not become aware of the pay discrepancy until near the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala.
    The Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the legislation in the last session of Congress, but Obama strongly supports it and the Democratic-controlled Congress moved it to the top of the agenda for the new session that opened this month.
    The House on Tuesday passed it on a 250-177 vote.
    “What a difference a new Congress and a president make,” said Rep. George Miller, DCalif., sponsor of the bill and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
    Obama invited Ledbetter, for whom the bill is named, to accompany him on his train trip to the inauguration ceremony in Washington. After the Senate vote last week, the 70-year-old retiree said Obama “has assured me that he would see me in the White House when they sign the bill.”
    “By swiftly passing this legislation, Congress sets a new tone for employment rights,” said ACLU legislative counsel Deborah J. Vagins. “The Ledbetter legislation restores a clear, bright-line rule for determining the timeliness of claims.”
    Having succeeded with the Ledbetter bill, labor rights advocates can turn to tougher issues, including a controversial measure, expected to come up later this year, that would take away a company’s right to demand a secret ballot when workers are deciding whether to join a union.
    The Ledbetter bill focuses on pay and other workplace discrimination against women: The Census Bureau last year estimated that women still only receive about 78 cents for every dollar that men get for doing equivalent jobs.
    But the measure, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also applies to discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, national origin, disability or age.
    Supporters argued that the 5-4 Supreme Court decision throwing out Ledbetter’s claim was unrealistic for most work environments in which employees are unaware of, or even barred from talking about, the salaries of their co-workers.
    They said it rewards companies that manage to keep wage discrimination secret for more than six months.
    Opponents contended that the legislation would gut the statute of limitations, encourage lawsuits and be a boon to trial lawyers. They also argued that employees could wait to file claims in hopes of reaping larger damage awards.
    “Enriching trial lawyers is simply the wrong way to ensure a fairer, more just workplace,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee.
    But backers pointed out that the bill does not change current law limiting back pay for claimants to two years, so there would be no incentive to wait to file a claim.
    The House first passed the..............................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00401

Funny thing.  If you have 180 days to file this "incident" when the female is getting paid less than the male, who is it that's breaking the rules?  I mean, with most companies, the payroll and how much each individual employee is making is confidential, except to that employee and their direct line of management.  So, unless a manager finds out that upper management is paying the different sexes different wages, this wouldn't even have a place to come from...unless people aren't minding their own business...which we know ALWAYS happens.  Just another way for Johnny Edwards to go out and make some money in fraudulent circus trials against companies.

I'm the Christine half of this name.  And I feel scrap this equal pay nonsense.

Women on the average make less than the man because women CHOOSE lower paying jobs.  The woman who is going to go be a typist is going to make less than the high school drop out man who goes to get an unskilled laborer job who works outside in extreme temperatures, might work inside lifting heavy items, etc.

I'll bet male nurses make less on the average than female nurses.  A woman getting hired as a doctor today in a given specialty field is going to be paid less than the male doctor.  The male doctor got the job 30 yars ago.  There is something called "starting pay" and then there is the pay that you get annual increases til you get to your maximum.   A woman who has been a doctor in a hospital in a certain specialty field will be getting paid more than the male doctor in the same specialty field who started working for the same hospital today.  It just happens that men have been doctors longer than women.  

Surely 20, 30, 40 year ago, there probably were few, engineers for example, that were women  A guy who began working 30 years ago surely will make more than the woman starting nowadays because not only incremental raises but he has had 30 years to get promotions.  

I'll bet ya Liz Bishop makes more than Ed O'Brien.  But I'll bet Ernie Tetrault was making more in the year before his retirement than Liz Bishop makes today.....but she'll be on par with him in her yar before retirement.  And of course, we have to adjust for cost living.

And sorry to say, Hillary, many woman CHOSE and still CHOOSE to be stay at home moms.  Most women do not choose to give birth in order to turn that baby over to "the village."  Most woman WANT to be moms.  Most women WANT to be home with their children and then perhaps when the youngest is in school the mom might take a job, but then still WANT a job that has the flexibility so they can take time off to be a chaperone for school trips and volunteer at other school functions.  It is highly rewarding to be working beside other mother with children in the same school your children attend, and you are collecting all those order forms for the Christmas wrapping sale fundraiser, the Easter candy fund raiser, etc.  This is unpaid volunteer and moms who are fortunate enogh to do that couldn't be happier.  Women would prefer to sit at the chaperone table at the Friday school dance rather than sit at the board room table at 9 pm on a Friday.   Being a mom, nursing your baby, the household chores, the raising of your children -- far more rewarding than being in the court room being the lawyer or the prosecutor, or the judge.  

Women can CHOOSE to rise up the ladder, and I dont' think society should prevent them from doing so.  If they want to have their children for 1% of the day and give up their children to the village for the other 99% of the day, fine, do it.  Today we have a way far greater percentage of troubled children.  I wonder how many of these troubled children have been raised by the village instead of their moms.  But we shouldn't deny these women the choice, but nor should we as a society foot the bill for their troubled children's actions which sometimes will result in another generation of troubled children of the troubled children of the corporate grandma.  

But for crying out loud, STOP whining that I make less than a man and saying that a law need to change that.  I make less than a man because I CHOOSE to make less

You're right Chris, I know many women who have chosen to climb the corporate ladder and have had to give up much of their family activities due to work obligations of traveling around the country to attend conferences and teach new methods to other companies. The money is great but at what cost to their families. I also believe if a women is doing the same job as a man she should be paid the same rate as the man is paid.

Very very well stated Chris...very well!!! Good for you!

Quoted from Shadow

You're right Chris, I know many women who have chosen to climb the corporate ladder and have had to give up much of their family activities due to work obligations of traveling around the country to attend conferences and teach new methods to other companies. The money is great but at what cost to their families. I also believe if a women is doing the same job as a man she should be paid the same rate as the man is paid.

Why is it the woman's 'cost to the family'?........I think women should give the fathers custody of the kids in divorce and go find a job..

so here we are today 2009 and nothing has changed........